Justin Bieber is having a rough time with the media lately. In the most recent incident, the 19 year old pop star ordered his security guards to take a camera from a paparazzo outside of the 'Hit Factory' recording studio in Miami. Bieber wanted to make sure the photographer wouldn't be able to shoot anymore and told his crew to "Grab that camera! Get that f***ing camera out of here!". After the photographer pleaded to get his camera back and promised to delete the photos, Bieber Agreed to give back the camera but kept the memory card.
Last week Bieber confronted another photographer, this time it was at the Eastern Conference Finals game 7 where a photographer working for 'Local 10' snapped one photo of Justin with his cellphone. Justin decided not to ignore it, and ordered his bodyguards to go and delete the image from the photographers' phone.
What do you think of Bieber's actions? Was he right doing what he did? Or he needs to find better ways to deal with the media? Is it even legal to force a photographer to delete an image when the subject may not have any right to privacy? It's a discussion that has much wider implications than just with regards to the polarizing pop star.
[via TMZ]
![Oops Olympus! Justin Bieber's New Music Video Was Also Shot With GoPros [UPDATED]](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/small-16-9/s3/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/justinbiebergopro.jpg)
SIM card lol. This is what happens when you give millions of dollars and fame to a kid.
an asshole is an asshole..... no matter how much money he makes.
don't think papparazis is well paid, but I get you
I believe he was talking about Justin...
Just ignore that wank*r
Just format the card in front of this idiot, and recover all your pictures with photorec ( http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec ). Done.
Bieber is just a thug, stealing cameras. The camera he stole probably costs $5000.
That is a felony, it is called grand theft, not allowing someone to leave is called kidnapping, OJ is cooling his heals in prison for that.
It is time for this Pop Star to calm down 1 it is not professional the way he is acting and 2 he is only 19 so one day he wil grow up
wow, I cannot believe all the love for the paparazzi on here....
It's not the love for the paparazzi, it's the hate for an immature little e-thug-gangsta who can't even put on a respectable outfit to meet his own countries leader. THAT is what this thread is about.
To be fair, Obama isn't the leader of HIS country (Canada). I have no love for the paparazzi, especially when they engage in dangerous vehicle pursuits, but this is pretty benign, snapping a few frames on the sidewalk-type stuff.
He wore overalls and a backwards cap when he met the Prime Minister of Canada which is Beiber's country.
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1208020!/img/httpImage/image...
First comment that makes sense
You figure? So not loving someone entitles you to treat them any way you want, legal or not?
Who has love for paparazzi? I think everyone here has love for the law and disdain for Biber's actions.
It's true that paparazzo can be annoying to a celebrity when they want to be left alone, but those same celebrities have hired PR people and publicists to get them coverage in these magazines so that they'd have a career. What then? Once you have achieved the fame and corresponding fortune you get to decide it's enough and send your hired goons to harass the photographers? Nope. You decided you wanted to play the game, so now you have to play by the rules. If the paparazzo don't play by the rules and come on your private property you call the cops. If the celeb attacks you or steals your property, you call the cops too.
Photographers need to know their rights and stand up for them. Subjects need to know theirs too, and also realize what rights they don't have, like total privacy when out in public.
It's "paparazzi." "Paparazzo" is for singular use.
Proof that I thankfully don't shoot in that world.
The part of me that understands how easy it is to turn into an A$$ when are young and have a throng of people around you that are basically at your beck and call. But as a photographer if you are within your rights and not trespassing a bodyguard has no right to confiscate your gear or make you delete images.
Def. should be tar and feathered.... Seriously, give him time to implode. We will all be laughing when this little douche is a broke boozer....
Yea, but did they release the name of the papparazi? Kind of hard to get a s* head hiding in bushes...
I must have missed the hiding in bushes part. Where did that come from?
Okay, that's stereotypical, but isn't that what those scums do? they should join the army or the zoo, after what I hear they hear some of them are pretty good at both hiding in nature and climbing trees...but again, that's just my impression, and not THAT serious
Some do, some don't. It's like any profession I suppose; some bad apples giving everyone a bad name.
http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-news/justin-bieber-sued-photog-over-gun...
Not that I would be taking photos of the little douche bag but his security guards would be sorely mistaken in any notion that they would be getting my camera or my memory card and any attempt to take it from me by force would be considered an attack on me and my personal property, therefore assault and theft charges would be brought up.
His bodyguards and him are guilty of conspiracy, it is a crime to take someones property like that, one day they will do it to the wrong person and may end up getting shot for a forcible felony.
No, he didn't have a right to order the camera taken and the memory card removed. At the VERY least, he owes the photographer an apology and a new memory card. Ideally, the photographer would sue and win the case. Normally, I'm not one for haphazard and knee-jerk lawsuits. But this one demands it. Yes, being a "celebrity" has with it certain pitfalls, namely the lack of privacy whenever you step outside of your own property, and you have to deal with things like this a LOT. And I imagine it gets very tiring. However, that doesn't mean he has the legal right to confiscate the property of this photographer, particularly if the photographer wasn't breaking any laws while photographing this "celebrity."
Legal or not, the paparazzi really had it comming. You have to be pretty stupid to make a living harassing people and not expect them to react. Hate to say this, but good job Mr. Bieber!
How do you know it was paparazzi? What if it was simply someone doing "street" photography? How about if the photographer was female? If it was a paparazzo and he was dogging Bieber that still doesn't excuse or justify Bieber ordering assault and theft. Two wrongs never ever make a right.
Fanboy ...
What do you mean was he right doing what he did? NO!!!
Regardless of peoples opinions of paprazzi (I personally don't like them) there are a few simple points to bear in mind.
He is in a public place so has no expectation of privacy so there is nothing he can do to stop photos being taken of him.
He has NO legal right to demand photos be deleted and if he or his body guards touching a photographer with purpose of stopping photos is tantamount to assault. Finally removal of a camera from someone or just a memory card is outright theft!!!
An expected and well deserved theft...
Wonder what will happen if he orders the assault of a photographer who not only carries a camera but is also a licensed gun owner who has a permit to carry? I can see this not ending well for the naive little twit or his bodyguards. He is a public figure and his right to privacy only extends to where ordinary citizens would also have an expectation of privacy like restrooms, private residences, private property, etc. Out in public - he's fair game.
If you don't like photographers get out of the public media industry. Justin Bieiber is a joke. If that had been me I would have told him that. You're in a public place; you should expect to be photographed. If you don't like it; too bad. Had that been me shooting him; (and it would have had to be for a TON of money for it to have been me) I would have told him that and there would have been NO WAY he or his thugs would have taken my camera without beating me to get it. then let the assault charges commence.
that kid is so out of touch that he calls it a simcard...
I just think its funny he calls it a "sim" card lol.
I hope he gets ran over by a drunken Lindsay Lohan!!
What f-ing right does he have to take a photographers memory card or camera???
If that's the case, I'm going to go collect all his cars and his home for myself, his face pisses me off, so I have the right to...Right!??!?!
I am taking Photography Class at College in Washington state and we were talking about low so at least in our state it is legal for photographers to take a picture of people as long as they are at public property places. So as long as it was public place, and photographer didn't snapped any nude pictures of this little boy, the law is on Photographer's side.
And, btw, nobody can't take your camera from your hand because of ANY pictures until they will call police officer.
Can someone photoshop his face on Joffery's body....to be honest wouldn't take much work.
Wait...so you're telling me these photogs just rolled over and handed over their cameras / phones...ummm yeah right. I want to photograph him just so he knows it wouldn't be that easy all the time...
It is illegal since at the moment you click that shutter it is considered a creation by you, just like a painting, or a song. It's something you own. at least of curse you're in a place were photographers are prohibited... what he did is just disgusting
this is what happpend when boy hit high level star spot. i think we the pepole must stop the madness of giving children status as god.
When the lawyers coming knocking on his door. He (she) will whine.
Simply put he is a spoilt brat, if he was in the UK he would have been charged under the Theft Act, permanently deprive someone of goods or services. He could also be charged with criminal damage. He is quickly going down the Britney Spears route. In his circle of friends minders and entourage no one has ever said the word NO.
I'm sure it does get extremely stressful at times having photographers follow you everywhere, but there is also the fact that the photographers keep him in the spotlight and in the papers. He should know well at this stage that you can't have everything you way and photographers come with the territory.
Sounds like a nice lawsuit. Also I would still shoot with the onboard memory.
I just got an email that tickets to Bieber's "performance" are still available at the local concert venue near me.
Maybe, I should test his security thugs. I'll leave my Canon A-1 with the "potato masher" flash, a Sunpak 522 at home. I'll bring the Canon T-50 with a no-name zoom lens and a no-name shoe flash.
Bieber's thugs won't be able to find the SD card for my camera!
But do I really want to be surrounded by thousands of prepubescent teens? I really don't want to buy military ear protection gear that guys on the flight line use to launch aircraft off carrier decks.
Also, I have better things in life to do than wait for a Beiber.
If the roles were reversed: Imagine Bieber took a photo of me (in public) and I stole his camera or memory card. I would go to jail. That's whats wrong here.